Yes, Cider is a fast fashion brand. Its entire business model - from its rapid production of trend-driven clothing and weekly new releases to its low price points - is a textbook example of fast fashion.
The brand faces significant ethical concerns due to a severe lack of transparency in its supply chain and probable low wages for garment workers. Environmentally, Cider's practices are an even greater concern, with a heavy reliance on fossil fuel-based synthetic materials and no public commitment to sustainability initiatives. Here’s a breakdown of what you need to know about Cider's practices.
Cider fully embraces the fast fashion model by prioritizing speed, volume, and low costs over ethical production and environmental stewardship.
Cider provides almost no information to back up any claims of ethical production, leaving major unanswered questions about the welfare of its workers.
Cider manufactures products in countries like Bangladesh, where factory workers often earn wages far below a living wage. Garment workers in Bangladesh typically make around $180–$200 per month, while the estimated living wage is closer to $350. Cider offers no evidence that it ensures its factory partners pay a living wage, and it has no certifications like Fair Trade or SA8000 to verify worker conditions.
The brand has a complete lack of supply chain transparency. Cider does not publish a list of its suppliers, share factory audit results, or provide any tangible proof of its working conditions. This absence of disclosure is a major red flag and makes it impossible to verify if its workers are treated and paid fairly.
Cider primarily uses synthetic materials like polyester and nylon, so the direct use of animal products is minimal. However, the brand does not hold any animal welfare certifications, such as being PETA-Approved, nor does it have a formal policy on sourcing animal-derived materials.
Cider's approach to sustainability is non-existent. The brand's model is fundamentally at odds with environmental responsibility, from its material choices to its lack of public goals.
Cider's collections are overwhelmingly composed of conventional synthetic materials like polyester and nylon. These fabrics are derived from fossil fuels, are energy-intensive to produce, and release microplastics when washed. There is no evidence to suggest that Cider uses any significant amount of sustainable materials like organic cotton or recycled polyester, it's estimated that less than 10-20% of its materials are eco-friendly.
The company provides no data on its environmental performance. Cider doesn't report its carbon footprint, water usage, or chemical management policies. Furthermore, it has no publicly stated goals for reducing its emissions or achieving carbon neutrality, demonstrating a lack of commitment to mitigating its environmental impact.
Cider has no initiatives in place to address the end-of-life of its products. It does not offer any recycling, take-back, or repair programs to keep its clothing out of landfills. The low material quality and trend-focused designs contribute directly to fashion waste, as items are often discarded after only a few wears.
Cider has not published any sustainability goals, targets, or progress reports. Its website and marketing are focused entirely on trends and affordability, with no mention of environmental stewardship. This complete silence on sustainability is a clear indicator that it is not a priority for the brand.
Cider embodies the worst aspects of the fast fashion industry: a lack of transparency, a disregard for environmental impact, and a business model that fuels overconsumption.
Cider receives a D for ethics because of its profound lack of transparency. The company provides no public supplier information, no credible audit reports, and no evidence that its garment workers earn a living wage. While it doesn't face specific public scandals, the complete absence of information creates a high risk of labor exploitation within its supply chain.
The brand earns an F for sustainability. Cider’s reliance on virgin synthetics, a total lack of environmental performance data, and the absence of any circularity or waste reduction programs place it at the very bottom of the industry. The brand shows no meaningful effort to address its significant environmental footprint, making it a highly unsustainable choice.
If you're looking for trendy and affordable styles without the severe ethical and environmental costs, here are some far better alternatives.
A pioneer in ethical fashion, People Tree is B Corp certified and uses GOTS-certified organic cotton and Fair Trade practices to ensure workers are paid fairly. Their pieces offer timeless style with a focus on high-quality, sustainable materials built to last.
Shop now at peopletree.co.uk
Everlane focuses on modern wardrobe staples with "radical transparency" into its factories and pricing. The brand uses a high percentage of recycled materials, is Climate Neutral certified, and provides detailed information on its factory partners.
Shop now at everlane.com
Known for its iconic sneakers, Veja is a leader in using innovative, sustainable materials like wild rubber from the Amazon and recycled plastics. The B Corp brand is deeply committed to supply chain transparency and fair trade sourcing.
Shop now at veja-store.com
Esteemed for its durable outdoor apparel and activism, Patagonia uses a high proportion of recycled and organic materials in its products. As a B Corp and 1% for the Planet member, the brand guarantees Fair Trade production and offers a lifetime repair program to fight waste.
Shop now at patagonia.com
Founded with a full commitment to sustainability, Outerknown uses materials like organic cotton and regenerated fibers and is Fair Labor Association accredited. The brand offers timeless coastal styles and holds itself to the highest standards of social and environmental responsibility.
Shop now at outerknown.com
Cider's low prices are a direct result of its fast fashion model. The brand uses cheap, synthetic materials that cost very little to produce and likely relies on low-wage labor in its overseas factories to keep production costs at a minimum. Its high-volume sales strategy allows it to profit off small margins on a massive number of items.
While their business models are nearly identical - online-only, ultra-fast trend cycles, low prices, and manufacturing in China - Cider and Shein are separate companies. They are direct competitors in the same market, but there is no evidence that they share ownership or are formally connected.
From an ethical and sustainability perspective, there is currently very little to redeem Cider. The brand excels at making trendy clothing accessible at very low price points, but this comes at a significant hidden cost to garment workers and the planet. Without any transparency or demonstrated commitment to improvement, its negative impacts far outweigh the affordability it offers.
